Tedious poster killing discussion

Mark Hamill

looksee wrote: »

The ignore facility works only if everyone is prepared to use it. The arguments put forward as often easy to dispute, provided you go with the flow of whatever direction the contentious poster wishes to go, The contentious poster throws out bits of easily followed bait and there is usually someone who will take the bait - and it only needs one person to take on these irrelevant angles. This results in pointless discussions that push out the original topic and the original topic dies.

And if someone new starts posting in the thread, they throw out the same bait again as if the previous 10 pages of discussion had never happened. By the time the new posters learns not to engage, another new poster will come along and the process repeats. And so around and around the thread goes.

Mark Hamill

Robineen wrote: »

There will always be posters who can't be sanctioned. They'll get close to breaking rules but never will. It's infuriating but there's little that can be done except not to reply. That will never fully happen though, someone will always reply. So what's to be done?

Well, if regular posters can, as per your suggestion, be expected to recognise tedious posters and put them on their ignore list, can we not expect mods to recognise them too by the same criteria?
Can the mods see if a poster is on anyone else's ignore list? Can they see how many ignore lists a poster is on? Maybe the ignore list could be incorporated in a mods decision to intervene. If a poster is on e.g. >30% of the ignore lists of users on a particular forum, and there are a number of strong examples of their posts being reported for trolling by tediousness, then the mod could act on them.

.......

This post has been deleted.

looksee

If the post is apparently relevant, respectful and appropriate it is difficult for a mod to sanction it. It is possible to use low level trolling over a long number of posts and it involves a considerable amount of reading and following the gist of the thread to realise what is going on. There are already complaints about over-zealous mods, it is very difficult to sanction a single post that is civil and appears to be more or less on topic - you cannot just ban all stupid arguments, it is up to the users to persuade the offending poster that they are wrong/ not making any sense. This is fine until you get an intelligent, literate poster who is just playing games or doing clever trolling. It is when you realise that they are in fact capable of intelligent discussion in other forums that you also realise there is another agenda.

jameorahiely

looksee wrote: »

If the post is apparently relevant, respectful and appropriate it is difficult for a mod to sanction it. It is possible to use low level trolling over a long number of posts and it involves a considerable amount of reading and following the gist of the thread to realise what is going on. There are already complaints about over-zealous mods, it is very difficult to sanction a single post that is civil and appears to be more or less on topic - you cannot just ban all stupid arguments, it is up to the users to persuade the offending poster that they are wrong/ not making any sense. This is fine until you get an intelligent, literate poster who is just playing games or doing clever trolling. It is when you realise that they are in fact capable of intelligent discussion in other forums that you also realise there is another agenda.

It seems certain posters who blatantly break the rules and charters are not sanctioned either. Posting stuff that is not relevant, not respectful or not appropriate should be easy for mods to sanction, yet goes unsanctioned.

.......

This post has been deleted.

jackofalltrades

The only thing that will stop new users engaging with tedious posters is some kind of Rep system.
They see the poster has a poor reputation and decide not to engage.
That coupled with an ignore function that doesn't even show you they posted would be ideal.
That said a system like that would be open to abuse, posters could just give negative rep points to someone whose views they disagree with.
It could turn forums into even bigger echo chambers.

I think this is one of those situations that you can't create workable rules against.
It just comes down to Mods banning someone for the greater good of the forum not dying off.
Which isn't ideal either.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Goya

I get the impression that not engaging with them would make it easier for the mod to address them. Whereas if a bunch of people take their bait and get personal with them, the mod has to admonish everyone.

Absolam

The issue certainly does appear to be becoming muddier.

We have a poster who appears to (I'm not sure how that is distinguished from does) post relevantly, respectfully and appropriately, and only over a long number of posts involving a considerable amount of reading and following the gist of the thread might someone think something is going on; presumably tediousness, which might easily be attributable to just a considerable amount of reading a long number of posts?

Looksee tells us the posts are civil and appear to be more or less on topic, though the contentious poster is apparently throwing out bits of easily followed bait and there is usually someone who will take it. That actually sounds like the contentious poster is causing discussion rather than killing it as far as I can see, especially since Looksee is actually saying this results in (pointless) discussions that push out the original topic.

I'd say whether one poster considers a particular discussion pointless shouldn't dissuade other posters from having it if they want; if it's killing discussion of the original topic, should Mods not simply be asking posters to stay on topic, or moving the new topic to another thread if posters are engaging with it? That seems more sensible than removing a poster that other posters are obviously interested in having a discussion with.

Off topic discussion is obviously not the same as killing discussion, but I think most A&A posters are aware that threads tend to meander; the abortion thread turned into a discussion of a BBC4 drama for a while without any sanctions, a character in the show had an abortion and that was apparently sufficiently relevant as to be allowed run it's course. I'd say allowing more or less on topic posting helps prevent a thread becoming sterile; the number of subjects other than the Angelus dragged into the Angelus thread, for instance, kept it interesting for much longer than if posters had stuck to just talking about the Angelus.

Absolam

Mark Hamill has posted that there are posters who tend to throw out the same bait again at new posters as if the previous 10 pages of discussion had never happened, and I think that sort of thing can happen, the Abortion thread being a good example; one poster asked the question "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" about thirty times to various posters. I'm inclined to think it's up to posters to read the thread and decide what they want to engage with, though I admit it can be difficult to avoid when something is put so directly to a poster, especially when followed up with "You still haven't answered my question" over and over. I'm not convinced it kills discussion, but it certainly can be tedious.

In those cases I think there are two recourses; first for posters, the ignore button for just this sort of thing. Second for Mods, the rule against placard proclamations. A question is not a proclamation, obviously, but if a poster is using it to bait posters over and over, then there is probably scope for intervention in that spirit? Looksee has obviously said this is not the thread to discuss the posting in the A&A forum, but I think we should be looking to hold all posters to one standard, all the same.

Gavinz

Christ...

[Mod snip: Again Gavinz let's not attempt to identify the user in question, lest it become a witch hunt]

Robineen

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What I meant was not that some posters are protected from sanction, more that their behaviour just doesn't quite break any rules so nothing can be done.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

I'm inclined to think it's up to posters to read the thread and decide what they want to engage with

What they engage with should be kept to as high a standard as possible. Nobody should have to read multiple pages of a thread, or threads in a forum, to figure out who is posts disingenuously so that they can put that poster on ignore.

It might take some time to build a case, so to speak, but if a mod posts in a forum themselves and they receive a significant number of post reports complaining about a specific posters constant thread killing with tediousness, then they should be able to recognise and act on it. It is better to pro-actively keep the forum clean, than to expect new posters to repeatedly do the work themselves via ignore. Most wont even bother to read the forum and the forum will start to die, which is just what the tedious/disingenuous posters want.

Absolam

Surely it's up to posters to decide what standard (being a fairly subjective thing) of posts they want to engage with? Most can conclude a poster is disingenuous or falls foul of their personal standards for themselves, as well as whether that will or should lead them to engage with that poster.

I don't think there's much value in presuming to speak for what another poster wants, particularly if it's someone you disagree with, but both A&A and Christianity seem quite vibrant fora all the same, and it doesn't appear either is in danger of dying as a result of how the long term posters post. In fact both seem to pick up even more when long term posters rejoin after an absence.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

Surely it's up to posters to decide what standard (being a fairly subjective thing) of posts they want to engage with? Most can conclude a poster is disingenuous or falls foul of their personal standards for themselves, as well as whether that will or should lead them to engage with that poster.

I don't think there's much value in presuming to speak for what another poster wants, particularly if it's someone you disagree with, but both A&A and Christianity seem quite vibrant fora all the same, and it doesn't appear either is in danger of dying as a result of how the long term posters post. In fact both seem to pick up even more when long term posters rejoin after an absence.

From previous posts:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What they engage with should be kept to as high a standard as possible. Nobody should have to read multiple pages of a thread, or threads in a forum, to figure out who is posts disingenuously so that they can put that poster on ignore.

looksee wrote: »

I know of one person last year (I was in contact with them outside of Boards), who abandoned A&A, and subsequently Boards because she was exasperated trying to debate with him. Now, this evening another poster has thrown in the towel and closed his account because of the unrelenting 'if you don't like it you can leave' and 'its a Catholic country for Catholics' attitude, and the ongoing specious and circular arguments of the leader of the pack.

Is it ironic that you are continuously failing to add to a discussion about posters who won't add to discussions?

Absolam

It's certainly odd that you'd characterise addressing your point as failing to add to the discussion.

Mark Hamill

Absolam wrote: »

It's certainly odd that you'd characterise addressing your point as failing to add to the discussion.

Your questions were answered by posts before them, so as usual you addressed nothing and added nothing.

Is it ironic that you are continuously failing to add to a discussion about posters who won't add to discussions?

Cabaal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is it ironic that you are continuously failing to add to a discussion about posters who won't add to discussions?

Not irony, failing to add anything is business as usual for him.

Zaph

As we've now descended to the inevitable stage where posters are just sniping at one another, unless anyone has anything useful to contribute to this discussion I can't see any good reason for leaving it open. I look forward to being proved wrong.

Mark Hamill

Well, the longer this thread goes, the more likely it was going to hit a very obvious outcome, if you think about it.

To try and hold that off for the moment, I think there is some useful questions to ask:
What is the mod/admin consensus on this issue?
Is it seen as general issue across the site, or is it only recognised by those who have directly encountered it?
What do the admins suggest to combat it? Ignore function or something else?

jameorahiely

Another poster has mentioned a tactic I see regularly and is extremely tedious.

Poster A asks poster B a question. Poster B answers. Poster A is not satisfied with the answer and spends the next 10 pages repeating the question, badgering poster A " you didn't answer". New people come to the thread and they join in " you didn't answer poster A". When in fact poster B answered it 10 pages ago.

Cabaal

jameorahiely wrote: »

Another poster has mentioned a tactic I see regularly and is extremely tedious.

Poster A asks poster B a question. Poster B answers. Poster A is not satisfied with the answer and spends the next 10 pages repeating the question, badgering poster A " you didn't answer". New people come to the thread and they join in " you didn't answer poster A". When in fact poster B answered it 10 pages ago.

Provided we can get a majority on board I think this might work. But I know what the response will be..... "but I did answer the question"

Mark Hamill

jameorahiely wrote: »

Another poster has mentioned a tactic I see regularly and is extremely tedious.

Poster A asks poster B a question. Poster B answers. Poster A is not satisfied with the answer and spends the next 10 pages repeating the question, badgering poster A " you didn't answer". New people come to the thread and they join in " you didn't answer poster A". When in fact poster B answered it 10 pages ago.

I think that in nearly every instance of this that I have seen, Poster B responds to whatever question put to them, but doesn't actually answer it and that is the problem. That is why such threads are allowed by mods to end up with 10 pages of Poster A calling on Poster B to answer the question. It is Poster B that is making it tedious.

The only time I have seen it where Poster B actually answered the question (or at least gave answer that allowed the discussion to continue) but Poster A continued to declare that Poster simply B hadn't, Poster A almost immediately got a mod warning and threatened with a card.

.......

This post has been deleted.

looksee

I don't think you can expect mods to read and analyse every thread to the extent they would have to in order to moderate this kind of behaviour. They at least need to have attention drawn to it. It would not reasonably become an issue unless an individual was doing this continually, and again, this would need to be pointed out to mods.

Even then the poster would have to have been pulled up on this kind of behaviour previously before it would be reasonable to sanction. (This is personal opinion, not mod rules)

Mostly a poster will be pulled up by other posters and the topic moves on. Just occasionally a poster is too stubborn or focussed or single-minded (or trolling) to react to these kind of nudges and continues to go round in circles repeating their mantra.

jameorahiely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think that in nearly every instance of this that I have seen, Poster B responds to whatever question put to them, but doesn't actually answer it and that is the problem. That is why such threads are allowed by mods to end up with 10 pages of Poster A calling on Poster B to answer the question. It is Poster B that is making it tedious.

The only time I have seen it where Poster B actually answered the question (or at least gave answer that allowed the discussion to continue) but Poster A continued to declare that Poster simply B hadn't, Poster A almost immediately got a mod warning and threatened with a card.

The thing about this, is poster B has answered and discussion has continued with other "normal posters" but poster A is like a tedious dog with a bone (or like a stubborn child in the corner shouting Answer me) Ironically poster A is usually avoiding answering questions themselves and when this is pointed out the answer with something along the lines of "i did answer, tough, if it wasn't to your satisfaction"

No wonder people leave threads and time and time again discussion is shut down. All poster A is doing is centring the thread around poster B.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

jameorahiely wrote: »

The thing about this, is poster B has answered and discussion has continued with other "normal posters" but poster A is like a tedious dog with a bone (or like a stubborn child in the corner shouting Answer me) Ironically poster A is usually avoiding answering questions themselves and when this is pointed out the answer with something along the lines of "i did answer, tough, if it wasn't to your satisfaction"

No wonder people leave threads and time and time again discussion is shut down. All poster A is doing is centring the thread around poster B.

Again, in almost all of the examples of this I have seen, Poster B has been the one in the wrong, even if other lines of discussion continued in the thread at the same time or after.